What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?

When I read my Grandfather's PHD thesis from the 1930s genetics literature or in his own non-published version I find that "science" THEN was 'conclusive'. At least in genetics then onw wrote the paper and then listed as a "conclusion" a summary of all that could be understood from the data collected and analyzed. When I got to Cornell science was "inconclusive" in the sense that is is not done at the end of papers any more but is presumed in the actual content itself and the only summary was the "take home" part of the lecture which could ALWAYS be something that was needed to be explained if the reader or listener "didnt get it". The problem with the word "inconclusive" is that we DO NOT provide these Summaries any more and assume that someone is just not understanding science if the require not the explanation but the summary instead. However I guess that inconclusive was meant to mean tentative and that is the way i think you both meant it. This should be clear in the c/e context else I will be taken as being incomprehensible which was not my intent. So if you are reading this -- last sentence than disregardreading this particular post (of mine).

right, In high school biology class I actually was given the ability to do an experiment where I prayed to some plants and did not pray to others to see if it effected growth rates. I did not notice any but as you suggested this might still be the negative result in Faraday's xcriticism of the "contact" theory for which he had scales falling off material in a solution while I may not have had good enough experimental error control. Point well taken. Thanks for the feed forward. Best. Brad.